If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
As a person who lives in an area that uses oxygenated fuels in the
winter I can tell you from experience that it doesn't matter WHAT the vehicle is that uses gas. It loses power AND gets worse mileage than using the non oxygenated fuels for the rest of the year. In the various vans (Caravans 3.3 auto) I averaged 22 mpg during summer months and as soon as the oxygenated fuels started to appear that number dropped to 19. This also happens with personal vehicle we own and it happens with just about everyone else as well. Oh and before anyone says "other reasons" are causing it like longer warm up times at idle or driving habits or tires. None of that changes on my personal vehicles, they get started put in gear and go regardless of temperatures. On the Caravans I can say that the only thing that did change should have increased the gas mileage. That change was to turn the AC off. Otherwise it was start the engine, take off and head to the first call, leave engine running regardless of season. (probably could have saved 1mpg by shutting it off but we didn't do that since it was company policy to leave it running unless it was parked at home or in a service bay) Oxygenated fuels SUCK regardless of the vehicle. Now if you really want to see how bad they are try using some in a small gas engine like a snowblower or tractor. I now buy an extra 30 gallons to keep on hand for the winter since the oxygenated crap really kills an air cooled engine. Alcohol in a dragster is mainly used for one reason It has high octane so it doesn't detonate when packed in the cylinder. However the other side is that it is also a bitch if it catches fire since it burns hot and the flames are largely invisible been there myself and it isn't fun. It also is hard to store since it is VERY hydroscopic, to the point that once you open a drum up and start using it you have to use it all ASAP or it will be junk in short order. Oh and FYI ANY mix with over 10% alcohol voids the factory engine warrantee for most manufacturers as well. -- Steve Williams "C. E. White" > wrote in message ... > > > "Daniel J. Stern" wrote: > > > > On Mon, 9 May 2005, C. E. White wrote: > > > > > "3. Will oxygenated gasoline perform as well as conventional > > > gasoline in my vehicle? > > > > > Oxygenated gasoline will perform as well in modern vehicles > > > with engine control systems that adjust the air-fuel ratio. > > > > False. Oxygenated fuel contains less energy per volume unit than > > unadulterated gasoline. Correct AFR is nice, but does not change the fact > > that you get less power on oxygenated fuel, and you burn more of it to do > > the same work...simply because oxygenated fuel contains less energy. > > I guess it depends on what you mean by "performs as well." I > think Chevron was saying that must cars will run fine on > oxygenated fuel. I am not sure what you mean when you say > you get less power. If you mean you lose engine power, I > don't agree. I believe the fuel injection systems of most > modern vehicles have enough fuel delivery capacity to > increase fuel delivery to make up for the reduced energy > content of the oxygenated fuel. If you are talking about > fuel economy, well the part of the Chevron FAQ you chose to > cut out did make it clear that there would be a reduction in > fuel economy. The entire FAQ is repeated below: > > "3. Will oxygenated gasoline perform as well as conventional > gasoline in my vehicle? > > "Oxygenated gasoline will perform as well in modern vehicles > with engine control systems that adjust the air-fuel ratio. > Oxygenated gasoline may cause some driveability problems in > carbureted cars and fuel injected cars without engine > control systems because they result in an air-fuel mixture > that is more fuel lean. Oxygenated gasoline reduces fuel > economy, on average, by 2 to 3 percent. The odor of gasoline > oxygenated with MTBE or the other ethers differs from that > of conventional gasoline." > > Regards, > > Ed White > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Steve W. wrote:
> As a person who lives in an area that uses oxygenated fuels in the > winter I can tell you from experience that it doesn't matter WHAT the > vehicle is that uses gas. It loses power AND gets worse mileage than > using the non oxygenated fuels for the rest of the year. In the various > vans (Caravans 3.3 auto) I averaged 22 mpg during summer months and as > soon as the oxygenated fuels started to appear that number dropped to > 19. I agree with you that many oxygenated gasoline formulations cause problems, but the problem with your comparison is that cars burn more fuel when ambient temperatures are low, regardless of what kind of fuel they're burning or how quickly you drive off after first startup. There are far too many variable factors even just filling up with regular and then with oxygenated fuel at the same time of the year; the different times of year means the comparison's garbage. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, dyno wrote: > > >>Since both ethanol and methanol have less energy per volume of fuel, one >>just adds more fuel until all of the oxygen is consumed. > > > <snip a bunch of inapplicable handwaving and ooh-ha-ha> > > ...and we still wind up with less work done by a given volume of fuel. > Call it lower MPGs or lower power, whichever you like, it doesn't really > matter. For any set of conditions, one gallon of gasoline does more work > than one gallon of ethanol or methanol, straight or blended with gasoline, > simply because the alcohols contain less energy. And that's just always > the case. Ethanol and methanol both contain less energy than gasoline, per > volume unit, period, no matter what magic modifications you do to an > engine. No argument here. > > To the degree the effective air-fuel ratio is leaned by the use of alcohol > relative to gasoline, the mixture can be corrected by dumping in more > fuel, but this doesn't mean you get the lost power back. Putting the Oh really. Why not? If the fuel energy was put back in with more fuel, then where did that energy go? > effect into real-world terms, as long as you have travel left in the > accelerator, you can simply push it down further with alcohol-blended fuel > than with gasoline to compensate for the loss, though MPGs will continue > to suffer. However, this is just *compensation*, not deletion of the loss. What do you think compensation does? You aren't making any sense here. > The extreme case illustrates this: In the extreme case (Underpowered, > fully-loaded vehicle climbing a mountain highway, let's say) when the > accelerator is already on the floorboard and you're climbing the hill at > 35 mph in the right lane with your blinkers going -- running on gasoline > -- changing to a lower-energy-content fuel means your foot will still be > on the floor but you'll be doing, say, 25 or 30 mph instead of 35. (I > didn't run the calculations to come up with an exact mph difference; the > point is illustrative without it.) > No it isn't. Run the numbers. I'm real curious how your version of thermodynamics works. The fact is (and what the numbers I posted showed) was that for the same amount of air, adding the same equivalence ratio of fuel will in fact provide more fuel energy in the cylinder. > DS > > Nobody ever claimed on a volumetric basis alcohols were equivalent to gasoline. You seem to confuse power with fuel economy. They are not equivalent. You adjust the mixture differently to get max power than to maximize fuel economy. For fuel economy one DOES care about volumtric flow. But, for max power one wants to fully utilize the air inducted. If that means way more fuel flow, so what? Apparently your disparaging comment (ooh-ha-ha) means anything technical is beyond your comprehension. The fact remains that even under WOT conditions you can easily get at least the same power output from pure alcohols, alcohols/gasoline blends as with pure gasoline. That is readily verifiable on any decent engine test. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, C. E. White wrote: > > >>Chevron was saying that must cars will run fine on oxygenated fuel. I am >>not sure what you mean when you say you get less power. If you mean you >>lose engine power, I don't agree. I believe the fuel injection systems >>of most modern vehicles have enough fuel delivery capacity to increase >>fuel delivery to make up for the reduced energy content of the >>oxygenated fuel. > > > Doesn't work that way unless you have forced induction (supercharger or > turbocharger). Yours is a common error, though, thinking that a correction > in air/fuel ratio will make up for the reduced energy content of the fuel. > Air is the working fluid -- fuel's just used to heat up the air so it > expands and does work. Less energy in the fuel = less heat = less bang = > less power. One does not trump this physical law by monkeying with the > air/fuel ratio. > > DS Hog wash! You don't seem to understand that the energy supplied is governed by the mass of fuel added. Since alcohols have less energy per volume and must run much richer to maintain the same relative A/F, one increases the delivered fuel volume. If fuel A has half the energy as fuel B and needs to run at 7:1 A/F instead of 14:1, then by doubling the fuel to get to 7:1, the energy in the charge will be the same. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote:
> Since alcohols have less energy per volume and must run much richer to > maintain the same relative A/F, one increases the delivered fuel volume. Thereby getting less work (or "power", if you must) out of any given volume of fuel. Exactly. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote:
> > To the degree the effective air-fuel ratio is leaned by the use of alcohol > > relative to gasoline, the mixture can be corrected by dumping in more > > fuel, but this doesn't mean you get the lost power back. > Oh really. Why not? Because there's nothing you can do to change the fact that alcohol contains less energy than gasoline. You're simply going to burn more alcohol than gasoline to do a given amount of work. > > The extreme case illustrates this: In the extreme case (Underpowered, > > fully-loaded vehicle climbing a mountain highway, let's say) when the > > accelerator is already on the floorboard and you're climbing the hill > > at 35 mph in the right lane with your blinkers going -- running on > > gasoline -- changing to a lower-energy-content fuel means your foot > > will still be on the floor but you'll be doing, say, 25 or 30 mph > > instead of 35. (I didn't run the calculations to come up with an exact > > mph difference; the point is illustrative without it.) > No it isn't. Well, ol' bean, I'm afraid I'm disinclined to put together a PowerPoint presentation for you. Perhaps if you think about it a little harder you'll catch on. > You seem to confuse power with fuel economy. For all practical purposes in street-driven cars, they are merely two means of expressing the same thing: Work done per unit of fuel consumed. It's just that talking in terms of "power" puts the emphasis on work done, while talking in terms of "fuel economy" puts the emphasis on fuel consumed. Fulminating about race cars, dyno engines and suchlike is fun and nifty, but not particularly applicable to the hordes of Chevies and Toyotas on US roads today. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, C. E. White wrote: > > >>Chevron was saying that must cars will run fine on oxygenated fuel. I am >>not sure what you mean when you say you get less power. If you mean you >>lose engine power, I don't agree. I believe the fuel injection systems >>of most modern vehicles have enough fuel delivery capacity to increase >>fuel delivery to make up for the reduced energy content of the >>oxygenated fuel. > > > Doesn't work that way unless you have forced induction (supercharger or > turbocharger). Yours is a common error, though, thinking that a correction > in air/fuel ratio will make up for the reduced energy content of the fuel. > Air is the working fluid -- fuel's just used to heat up the air so it > expands and does work. Less energy in the fuel = less heat = less bang = > less power. One does not trump this physical law by monkeying with the > air/fuel ratio. > > DS The PROPER fuel air mixture will return the power, as the proper mixture for alcohol is twice the fuel per unit of air than gasoline. IF the engine is made to sense alcohol, as in an E85 vehicle, it will restore the power, though not the milage. I doubt if non-E85 setups will recalibrate, however. My vintage racing car is set up to run alky. The main jets are bored out to approx twice the area of the stock jets. Car runs great- lots of power. I am running the stock CR, and whenever I have to rebuild engine, I will raise CR so that I will get even more power than currently. Alky powered cars are not wimpy. They sure guzzle fuel, however. Even though alky is cheaper here than gasoline, it still costs me more than if I were using gasoline. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
dyno wrote:
> > Apparently your disparaging comment (ooh-ha-ha) means anything technical > is beyond your comprehension. The fact remains that even under WOT > conditions you can easily get at least the same power output from pure > alcohols, alcohols/gasoline blends as with pure gasoline. That is > readily verifiable on any decent engine test. Geez, you guys! Can't we have a technical discussion without the name calling? I don't mean just dyno- a bunch of you are making this discussion way to personal. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > Because there's nothing you can do to change the fact that alcohol > contains less energy than gasoline. You're simply going to burn more > alcohol than gasoline to do a given amount of work. > The exception would be if the octane rating of the low energy fuel were high enough to greatly increase the CR. However, I don't think the octane of ethanol (I believe it is about 125) is high enough to allow that increase in CR. Yeah, fuel economy is a strong function of CR, but you'd have to increase it a LOT to get a 50% increase in efficiency. I tend to agree with Daniel that alcohol will never deliver the mpg that gasoline does, though it can deliver the same HP/CI. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
n.umich.edu: > On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote: > >> > To the degree the effective air-fuel ratio is leaned by the use of >> > alcohol relative to gasoline, the mixture can be corrected by >> > dumping in more fuel, but this doesn't mean you get the lost power >> > back. > >> Oh really. Why not? > > Because there's nothing you can do to change the fact that alcohol > contains less energy than gasoline. You're simply going to burn more > alcohol than gasoline to do a given amount of work. your still not getting it!!! only less per "volume" add the proper volume of alcohol back (as in richer mix) you add the total power, btu, any measure you want to use, and your power is returned to the same level. the only thing changed is the vol efficiency of the fuel. > >> > The extreme case illustrates this: In the extreme case >> > (Underpowered, fully-loaded vehicle climbing a mountain highway, >> > let's say) when the accelerator is already on the floorboard and >> > you're climbing the hill at 35 mph in the right lane with your >> > blinkers going -- running on gasoline -- changing to a >> > lower-energy-content fuel means your foot will still be on the >> > floor but you'll be doing, say, 25 or 30 mph instead of 35. (I >> > didn't run the calculations to come up with an exact mph >> > difference; the point is illustrative without it.) this will not happen unless you do not have the correct a/f ratio. If the ratio is changed to accout for the alcohol the power at WOT will not change. no speed reduction, only lower MPG. KB > >> No it isn't. > > Well, ol' bean, I'm afraid I'm disinclined to put together a > PowerPoint presentation for you. Perhaps if you think about it a > little harder you'll catch on. > >> You seem to confuse power with fuel economy. > > For all practical purposes in street-driven cars, they are merely two > means of expressing the same thing: Work done per unit of fuel > consumed. It's just that talking in terms of "power" puts the emphasis > on work done, while talking in terms of "fuel economy" puts the > emphasis on fuel consumed. > > Fulminating about race cars, dyno engines and suchlike is fun and > nifty, but not particularly applicable to the hordes of Chevies and > Toyotas on US roads today. > -- ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice 460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DaimlerChrysler Commits Over $70 Million to Fuel Cell | Shrike | Dodge | 0 | March 30th 05 09:03 PM |
Can I "service" a noisy fuel pump? | Christoph Bollig | Audi | 9 | March 24th 05 04:01 PM |
Failed Smog Check 1981 Trans AM | TheSmogTech | Technology | 0 | January 30th 05 05:16 PM |
Infiniti Q45 oil pan removal procedure | Miki | Technology | 25 | December 30th 04 01:07 AM |
76 Difficult Cold Starts | daveo76 | Corvette | 22 | September 9th 04 12:54 AM |